On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 12:41 +0100, Phil Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:53:41 +0200, "Arve Knudsen" <arve.knudsen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > How does one normally treat references returned by SIP-wrapped C++
> > objects? I just determined a segmentation fault in my program resulted
> > from an object first being obtained as a reference (in the C++ sense)
> > from a C++ method, and then destroyed with the parent object. Does one
> > normally keep in mind that the object dies implicitly with its C++
> > parent, or is there a way to have SIP give you copies rather than
> > borrowed references?
>> I will probably change SIP to make a copy when the reference is const. I
> think this fixes most of the problem areas although it does introduce an
> incompatibility.
Maybe there could be an annotation to control this behaviour? I think
both approaches are equally good, so the best solution is probably to
make the SIP user choose.
--
Giovanni Bajo
Develer S.r.l.
http://www.develer.com